RE: [ga] Draft of Bylaws Recommendation concerning the GeneralAssembly

["Joanna Lane" <jo-uk@rcn.com>]

Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote:-
Sent: Friday, February 16, 2001 8:38 AM

<I have a very simple suggestion that is fair to everyone.  Please note in
reading what follows that I am serious about this.

I think everyone, including the people physically present, should have to
submit comments via the 'remote' system and be subject to the same
filtering.  This will remove the otherwise highly unfair advantage that
wealth and physical proximity bring to attendees.  If the system of
handling remove comments is fair enough for remote participants, it should
be fair enough for physical participants.  If it is not, this system will
ensure that it quickly reaches that standard.

Anything less is second-class status.>


Professor Froomkin,

I agree 100% with you and support this proposal as the only practical
solution to present imbalances. Also, I would like to address some concerns
expressed by Ben Edelman earlier that have a bearing on this issue:-

1) Displaying remote comments is distracting to some attendees.

(i) Technical aspects of the display as a possible cause.  I am not
suggesting these haven't been addressed properly, but it's difficult for
those who were not present to imagine how basic requirements were satisfied
in LA, including legibility. Could Ben and other attendees expand?

a) what was the size and position of  the screen in relation to the BoD,
Speaker and Audience Mic?
b) Could each of the above read the screen easily throughout proceedings?
c) Could everybody else read the screen easily, including those at the back
and extreme sides, or was it a strain?
d) Could the speaker be seen at the same time as the screen, or was it a
choice between the two, involving turning away from the speaker ?
f) what was the pace of comments posted to the screen, was this too slow,
too fast, intermittent or just right?
g) what improvements would you like to see next time?
(i) how could improvements be implemented?
(j) any other comments

2. Public Archive vs. projecting at the meeting.

It would be a mistake to confuse access to comments noted in a public
archive, which is an historical record, with the posing of questions in an
interactive situation where comments are relevant to the work in hand of the
day. The latter adds value IMO.

3.  Increased fairness and even-handedness in selecting remote comments.

It has been recognized by many members that this requires in depth
discussion, with proper consideration given to alternative software, such as
Firetalk, which Sotiris has proposed. However, if we can agree on the
following statement, we have a basis to start work.

"Remote participation should not be manipulated unnecessarily as this gives
false feedback to those in the public auditorium about the nature and extent
of online commentary".
Do you agree?

4. Submitting remote comments in advance of the start of the meeting.

As you may remember, I have advocated against the use of pre-recorded
videoconference material, so I am not now suggesting that quality questions
presented live should be overlooked in favor of preconceived comments
received in advance of the meeting. However, should a technical glitch be
forthcoming, (which is about the only thing that can be guaranteed with a
live event), the availability of relevant standby material ensures minimal
disruption to momentum and provides some measure of continuity until such
time as live submissions resume. This is my purpose in calling for some
comments and questions to be agreed in advance through the GA list.

It is important to remember that the remote participant, unlike the
attendee, is subject to summary ejection from the meeting at any time for
reasons of a technical breakdown through no fault of their own. Short of a
fire, there is no such risk for the attendee, who may stand at the mic and
read their own comment. The proposal is, in effect, to offer limited
insurance against such difficulties, as a form of indemnity for the remote
participant to cover a risk that could be viewed as reasonably high at this
stage.

No doubt, all would agree that any question posed could have been prepared
well in advance, the only difference here being that Ben and the GA Chair
would use their own judgement as to when that comment should be used, which
as I understand it, is largely similar to the current submission procedure
of filtering and posting at their discretion.

It should not be left to luck that a) Q&A sessions cannot proceed because of
crashed connections, b) Liaison and GA Chair cannot deliver quality work
consistently because of crashed connections and c) ICANN cannot maintain
momentum and a stable operation with high production values because of
crashed connections.

What is needed is a back-up source that can be called upon at any time if
the primary source for remote participants goes down at a crucial moment in
time, so that things could proceed seamlessly. For the GA, the minimum
requirement should be one or more short questions on each major topic
compiled and ready to be posted by Liaison at the start of every Q&A
session. If the session proceeds without fault, the writer submits their
comment in the normal way.

What I am suggesting is actually very close to what Kendall has proposed,
but his purpose is not the same, does not satisfy this need and visa versa,
therefore I would suggest both proposals are moved forward for a "proof of
concept"  experiment, to confirm that the system can handle both without
causing instability. After all, this seems to be ICANN's preferred way of
doing things.

5. Screen display for comments as they are read out.
Ben wrote:- <snip>
(Indeed, each [remote] comment is displayed on-screen while it's read -- as
the scribe's notes generally reflect, i.e. "remote comment #1234
from Tom Smith read in its entirety and displayed on screen" might be
entered into scribe's notes when that is the case).>

IMO, we shouldn't be doing this for remote participants while denying the
same resource for attendees, as this is giving unfair advantage. Also,
comments that are read out should be noted by the scribe in the same form,
whatever their source.


6. Increase GA participation
Ben Edelman wrote:- Certainly any effort to increase GA participation both
in the GA's physical
meeting and in other ICANN sessions seems to me highly desirable, and I
applaud such attempts.

If these attempts are successful and lead to insightful and clearly-stated
questions closely related to the topics under discussion on the various
meeting agendas, I'm confident that the remote participation liaison will
properly present these messages to the assembled group.

- I trust noone here would disagree with you.

Regards,
Joanna



--
This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html